Delhi High Court
Deepak vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 30th, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 3005/2016
DEEPAK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Harsh Jaidka, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI
Amarpreet, PS Bawana.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as
Cr.P.C.) for quashing of complaint bearing CC No.4/B/14, titled
"Kavita v. Deepak and ors." under Section 494/495 IPC pending
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (North), Rohini,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no.2-Kavita had filed
a criminal complaint under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. against
the petitioner and others for offences under Section 494 IPC. It
was alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the respondent
no.2 was solemnized with the petitioner-Deepak Kumar on
17.01.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In the
marriage, family of the respondent no.2 spent an amount of approx
Rs.35-40 lacs. The petitioner was working in Delhi Fire Service at
STO. As per his service requirement, he was allowed to take rest
after days duty. Whenever he returned back from work, he used to
abuse the respondent no.2/complainant on the issue of non-
fulfillment of their dowry demands. On one day, the respondent
no.2/complainant saw the petitioner-husband with a lady i.e.
accused no.2-Mamta in the market and they went away in a car.
Thereafter also, the complainant saw her husband in the company
of that lady and later on it was revealed that he was previously
married and the said fact was concealed by him at the time of their
marriage. The complainant gave a written complaint to the police
but since they did not register the case, the complaint was filed in
the Court.
3. Pre-summoning evidence was adduced by the complainant.
After going through the pre-summoning evidence, the learned
Magistrate summoned the petitioner under Section 494/495 IPC
vide order dated 04.06.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the continuance
of criminal complaint, the present petition has been preferred by
the petitioner.
4. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner were
heard.
5. Grounds taken in support of the present petition and the
arguments advanced are that the marriage between the petitioner
and Mamta was performed but when the parents of the petitioner
came to know about it, they did not accept the said marriage. A
panchayat was conveyed wherein a settlement deed was executed
and it was agreed that the said marriage was not valid. A
settlement dated 05.08.2012 was arrived at between them and even
the said marriage was not consummated. At the time of marriage
of the petitioner with respondent no.2/complainant, the family
members of the complainant were intimated about the matrimonial
history of the petitioner. After marriage, the petitioner and
respondent no.2/complainant started living as husband and wife.
Due to duty hours of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 started
pressuring the petitioner to live separately. On 05.07.2013, a false
FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner and
his family members. It was further argued that Ms.Mamta was real
maternal aunt of the petitioner and as per Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, such relationship was not valid and legal. Petitioner
filed a case against Ms.Mamta seeking annulment of their marriage
and the marriage was declared null and void by the Court vide
order dated 07.08.2015.
6. Counsel for the petitoner relied upon the judgments in the
case of M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India and others AIR 2006
SC 80, Harish Uppal v. Neera Dixit 1989 (17) DRJ 100 and
M.C.D. v. State of Delhi and another AIR 2005 SC 2658 to press
the contention that the marriage covered by Section 11 of the
Hindu Marriage Act void from the very inception has to be ignored
and that once the earlier marriage has been declared null and void
by the competent court, even if there is concealment of said
marriage it is not sufficient to hold the marriage invalid.
7. In the present case, it is an admitted case of the petitoner
himself that he had performed marriage ceremony with Ms.Mamta
on 19.10.2010 which was registered with the Registrar of Marriage
on 21.10.2010. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitoner with the
respondent no.2-Kavita was solemnized on 17.01.2013. The
petitoner filed a petitoner under Seciton 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act against Ms.Mamta for declaring their marriage null and void
and the decree of nullity was passed on 07.08.2015.
8. It is apparent from the record and as per the own admission
of the petitoner himself, at the time of his marriage with the
respodnent no.2-Kavita i.e. on 17.01.2013, his earlier marriage
with Ms.Mamta was still subsisting. Admittedly, the decree of
nullity of the marriage of the petitioner and Mamta was passed on
07.08.2015 that is too after performing second marriage by the
petitoner with the respondent no.2-Kavita. The judgments relied
upon by the petitions are of no assistance to him as the same are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as it is
apparent from the record that at the time of marriage of the
petitioner with the respondent no.2-Kavita his earlier marriage
with Ms.Mamta was still subsisting and had not been declared null
and void by any competent Court. So, there is no basis in the
contention of the petitoner that since his earlier marriage with
Ms.Mamta was not valid one, there was no question to get it
declared null and void.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is sufficient material on record in the
form of evidence adduced by the complainant/respodnent no.2-
Kavita to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section
494/495 IPC.
10. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,
there is no merit in the present petition. Same is accordingly
dismissed. Application, if any, is also disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
dd
